Friday, March 26, 2021

Lupine Publishers | Sinonasal Surgeries in a Tertiary Health Care Institution in a Developing Country, Nigeria

 Lupine Publishers | Journal of Otolaryngology


Abstract

Background: Sinonasal diseases usually required surgical management. There is increasing cases of poorly treatment by nonspecialist. This study aimed at determining sociodemographic features, indications, complication and outcome of sinonasal surgeries

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of patients that had sinonasal procedures in our tertiary health care facility. The data collected were collated and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0.

Results: The proportion of sinonasal procedures among the patients was 31.6%. There were 58.8% males with male to female ratio of 1.5:1 Major presenting complaints was 57.3% nasal blockage and 52.8% catarrh/epistaxis. Common clinical findings were rhinorrhea and reduced nasal patency in 69.4% and 48.8% respectively. Sinonasal procedures in unilateral nasal cavity was 52.2% while right nasal cavity occurred in 29.6%. Outpatient clinic procedures was 66.7%, elective procedures accounted for 60.5% and major procedures accounted for 29.3%. masses is the commonest CT Scan findings in 20.3% followed by sinuses in 15.6%. Main diagnosis was 39.9% rhinosinusitis, 38.3% foreign body impaction and 10.8% nasal polyps. Common sinonasal procedures were 38.3% nasal foreign body removal, 10.8% polypectomy, 9.8% antral washout and 9.3% nasal packing. Main complication of sinonasal procedures were wound infection in 2.9% and recurrence in 2.6%. There was 76.2% patient’s satisfaction with the sinonasal surgeries.

Conclusion:Sinonasal surgery is common in all age group. Presentation were most late, complicated and advanced. It mostly presented as clinic and elective procedures in this study.

Keywords:Rhinologist; sinonasal surgeries; nasal diseases; sino nasal diseases

Introduction

Sino nasal surgery is an art of surgical treatment of the nose and para-nasal sinuses pathology by either otorhinolaryngologic or Rhinologist [1,2]. Sino nasal diseases are on the increase due increase in industrialisation and technology [3-5]. There is also increase in sociomedical interaction and cosmetic consciousness about nose worldwide [5]. All these has led to growing rhinology subspecialty demands. Nose occupied the strategic position in the middle third of the face [6-8]. It is the outermost and uppermost conduit of the respiratory tract and prone to all forms of environmental hazard. This ranges from congenital to acquired diseases [3,4]. Various types of acquired nasal diseases includes traumatic, inflammatory, neoplastic, metabolic and systemic diseases with nasal manifestation [3,4]. Sinonasal diseases may also be primary or secondary to diseases from other head and neck organs which includes eye/orbit, dental apparatus, brain, cranial nerves and other intracranial structures [9-11]. These are managed by different forms of surgical approach and adjunct medical treatment. Clinical presentation of sinonasal disorders and other related diseases such as rhinosinusitis, sin nasal tumour, nasal polyps, dental diseases, lacrimal disorders, pituitary tumours, sin nasal cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea, and anterior skull base tumours presented to family physician, casualty officers, neurosurgeons, and ophthalmologists and subsequently referred to otorhinolaryngologic [12-14]. Pattern of clinical features of sinonasal diseases are nasal discharge, nasal blockage, nasal mass, bout of sneezing, headache, fever and facial asymmetry [13,14]. Other related symptoms depends on the primary source of sinonasal diseases which includes ocular symptoms, orodental symptoms and central nervous system symptoms. Radiological imaging inform of computerised tomography scan is required to rule out the extent of the tumour and bony destruction. Sinonasal endoscopy for diagnosis and determined to tumour origin with its extent is also an important investigation.

Majority of sinonasal surgery may be done in by otorhinolaryngologist or rhinologist alone or in team in collaboration with ophthalmologist, neurosurgeon, plastic and oral and maxillofacial surgeon. The approaches may either intranasal and extra nasal depending on the site and extent of the pathology [15-16]. Non-invasive procedures such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery is a newer surgical technique [2,9]. It is not a common surgical intervention in low income country like other surgical procedures but a commonplace in the developed countries. Sinonasal surgery in most developing countries has been hampered by the dearth of otorhinolaryngologic and rhinologist. There is also inadequacy of proper diagnostic tools and therapeutic facilities in developing countries compare to developed world. There is a paucity of publication documents on the pattern of sinonasal surgeries in developing countries. The knowledge from the documentation of sinonasal surgeries in our environment will help draw attention of the appropriate authorities to the challenges in the surgical practice. This will serve as bases to develop and form policy on sinonasal surgery improvement. This study aimed determining sociodemographic features, types, indications, limitation, complication and outcome of sinonasal surgeries in a tertiary health care institution of a developing country.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective study of all patients that had sinonasal surgeries done in Ear, Nose and Throat department of Ekiti state university teaching hospital Ado Ekiti, Nigeria. The study was carried out over a period five years (between October 2014 to September 2019). Data for this study was obtained from the hospital medical record department, ENT clinic operation booking register for both minor and major surgery and theatre operation register. The case notes of all the eligible patients were retrieved from the medical record department. Detailed data on sociodemographic features were obtained from the patient’s case note. Data of patient on clinical features, diagnosis, and indication for procedures, and type of procedures, complications, and patient’s satisfaction with the outcome of the procedures were obtained and documented. Inclusion criteria were all the patients that had sinonasal procedures in the department during the study period. Exclusion criteria were those patients who were not operated. Also, patients with incomplete clinical data on this study or those with missing case notes. All the obtained data were collated, documented and statistically analysed using SPSS version 18.0. The data were then expressed by descriptive statistics in frequency tables, percentage, bar chart and pie chart.

Results

The total number of patients seen during the period of study was 7,916 out of which a total of 1965 (24.8%) had sinonasal diseases and 621 had sinonasal procedures done given prevalence of 31.6%. In this study, the peak age groups were at the extreme ages of (1-10) years with highest number of procedures in 218 (35.1%). This is illustrated in Table 1. Gender distribution were 365 (58.8%) males and 256 (41.2%) females with male to female ratio of 1.5:1. Urban dwellers 341 (54.9%) were commoner than rural dwellers 280 (45.1%). Christians faith occurred in 547 (88.1%) while Muslims faith occurred in 74 (11.9%). Main patient/parent education level were 182 (29.3%) primary and 173 (27.9%) secondary. Parent/ patient occupation distribution were mainly student/apprentice, civil servants and business in 277 (44.6%), 138 (22.2%) and 89 (14.3%) respectively. This is showed in Table 2. Major presenting complaints was nasal blockage in 356 (57.3%) followed by catarrh/ epistaxis, objects in the nose and bout of sneezing in 328 (52.8%), 246 (39.6%) and 228 (36.7%). Common clinical findings were rhinorrhea, reduced nasal patency, foreign body impaction and sinonasal masses in 431 (69.4%), 303 (48.8%), 238 (38.3%) and 100 (16.1%) respectively. As demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 1: Age group distribution of the patients.

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Table 2: Sociodemographic features of the patients.

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Table 3: Main clinical features among patients

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Sinonasal procedures was commoner in unilateral nasal cavity in 324 (52.2%) than bilateral nasal cavity in 297 (47.8%). Right nasal cavity and left nasal cavity procedures occurred in 184 (29.6%) and 140 (22.5%) respectively. As illustrated in Figure 1. Majority of the procedures in 414 (66.7%) were performed in the outpatient clinic and minority in 207 (33.3%) were performed in the theatre. Theatre procedures were classified into minor, intermediate and major procedures which accounted for 8 (1.3%), 17 (2.7%) and 182 (29.3%) respectively. All sinonasal procedures were divided into elective and emergency procedures which accounted for 376 (60.5%) and 245 (39.5%) respectively. This is demonstrated in Table 4. Intranasal masses is the commonest CT Scan findings in 126 (20.3%). CT Scan findings in the sinuses accounted for 97 (15.6%) with maxillary and ethmoid sinuses accounted for 52 (8.4%) and 39 (6.3%) respectively. Common extension of the sinonasal pathology in this study were orbital extension and intracranial extension in 59 (9.5%) and 21 (3.4%) respectively. This is illustrated in (Figure 2). Main diagnosis and indication for sinonasal procedures in this study were rhinosinusitis in 248 (39.9%), nasal polyps in 67 (10.8%), sinonasal injuries in 29 (4.7%) and foreign body impaction in 238 (38.3%). Less common diagnosis and indications were nasolabial cyst, frontoethmoidal mucocele, and fungal mass in 2 (0.3%), 3 (0.5%) and 4 (0.6%) respectively. This is showed in (Table 5). Commonest sinonasal interventional procedures in patients with sinonasal diseases in this study was 238 (38.3%) foreign body removal from the nose. Removal without anaesthesia and under general anaesthesia were 226 (36.4%) and 12 (1.9%) respectively. Other main sinonasal surgeries were polypectomy, antral washout (lavage), nasal packing, partial turbinectomy, nasal toileting/clearance and intranasal antrostomy in 67 (10.8%), 61 (9.8%), 58 (9.3%), 51 (8.2%), 46 (7.4%) and 44 (7.1%) respectively. Intranasal polypectomy occurred in 59 (9.5%) while extranasal polypectomy (Caldwell Luc procedures) occurred in 8 (1.3%). Less common sinonasal procedures were 3 (0.5%) rhinoplasty, 3 (0.5%) nasal cautherization, 3 (0.5%) reduction of nasal bone fracture and 4 (0.5%) suturing of lacerations. This is revealed in Table 6. Complications occurred in sinonasal surgeries in 64 (10.3%). Main complication of sinonasal procedures in this study was wound infection in 18 (2.9%). Other documented complication were recurrence in 16 (2.6%) and epistaxis in 14 (2.3%). Uncommon complication sin this study included septal perforation and adhesion in 1 (0.2%) and 2 (0.3%) respectively. This is shown in Figure 3. In this study, 65 (10.5%) of the patients were referred to other center for further investigation and treatment. Main limitation and indication for referral were surgical facilities, chemoradiotherapy and diagnostic equipment in 5 (0.8%), 6 (1.0%) and 41 (6.6%) respectively. Endoscopic sinus surgery was responsible for 4 (0.6%) referral. Patient financial constraints in 28 (4.5%) leads to delayed surgery. This is illustrated in Figure 4. In this study, 473 (76.2%) of the patients and their parents were satisfied with the sinonasal surgeries. Revision sinonasal surgeries were offered in 4 (0.6%). We recorded 14 (2.3%) patients’ loss to follow up. Surgical failure was noted in 12 (1.9%) patients. Patient in 6 (0.6%) was referral for sinonasal surgery in other center. Referral in 3 (0.5%) was for family support in other center. This is illustrated in Table 6.

Figure 1: Coronal CT imaging. In hypotympanun the foreign body is visualized (A).

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Figure 2: CT Scan findings among patients.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Figure 3: Complications among the patients.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Figure 4: Limitation and indication for referral among the patients.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Table 4: Main clinical features among patients.

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Table 5: Diagnosis and indications for surgeries among patients.

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Table 6: Procedures/Surgeries among patients.

lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Discussion

Sinonasal diseases is very common among otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases that visited our department. Most of these diseases presented late, untreated, poorly treated and usually complicated at presentation. There was high prevalence of surgical interventions due to the disease’s stages at presentation. In this study, sociodemographic features affected the pattern of sinonasal surgeries. The procedures were commonest in children and this is associated with high rate of infection, immunity, injuries and insertion of infected objects into head and neck orifices. Sinonasal surgeries are commoner in male than female (Figure 5). This may be due to high rate of infection and outdoor activities such as trauma and hazard in offices in male. Also, high rate of smoking and snuff in male. Due to availability, accessibility, affordability and better informed, urban dwellers had more sinonasal procedures than rural dwellers in this study [17].

Figure 5: Outcome of the surgeries/procedures among patients.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Sinonasal diseases in this study presented mainly with nasal blockage, objects in the nose, catarrh/epistaxis and bout of sneezing.18 Most of the patients presented late or with complicated cases. All sinonasal symptoms were assumed to be flu which is selftreated. Most patients or parents wrongly believe it is a household disease, self-limiting, treated at home and does not worth hospital consultation. Common clinical findings in our study were anterior rhinorrhea, reduced nasal patency, nasal foreign body impaction and sinonasal masses [19,20]. Unilateral sinonasal disorder were commoner than bilateral this may be because of the aetiology origins of the pathology. Likewise, right sinonasal conditions were commoner than left. Most patients are right handedness with easy picking of right nose. Most patients sleep on the right side with poor venous drainage and accumulation and gravitation of infectious mucous on right nose. Main sinonasal diseases in this study were rhinosinusitis, foreign body impaction and nasal polyps. In this study, sinonasal diseases are not limited to the nose and sinuses alone irrespective of the aetiopathogenesis. Radiologic imaging is essential to rule out extent of the pathology and adequate preparation for the surgery. Commonest extension was orbit followed by intracranial and palatal extension [21]. Sinonasal Surgeries usually required teamwork with ophthalmologist, neurosurgeon and oral and maxillofacial surgeon depending on the extent of the pathology. Chronic rhinosinusitis with major nasal obstructions in adult is usually secondary to enlarge and obstructive inferior turbinate. In this study, clinic procedures were commoner than theatre surgeries this may be due to inclusion of all cases. There was preponderance of emergency surgery over elective procedures because of self-medications, untrained hand interventions and presentation of complicated cases to our department. Among the theatre cases, commonest surgery was major surgery followed by intermediate and minor surgeries. This is because most of the cases were advanced and extranasal extensions. Commonest procedures were nasal foreign body removal of which majority were performed in outpatient clinic and minority in theatre under general anaesthesia. Polypectomy were performed under general anaesthesia because they are advanced with Intranasal approach commoner than extranasal approach such as Caldwell Luc procedures [22].

Antral washout mainly bilateral was carried out on patients with mucopurulent collection in the maxillary sinuses. Nasal packing was carried out among patients seen with epistaxis mainly secondary to inflammation and trauma. Anterior nasal packing was commoner than posterior packing where chemical cautherization was performed where bleeding point was visualized. Cases of rhinosinusitis were further treated with partial turbinectomy in obstructive turbinate and Intranasal antrostomy to aid antral drainage and ventilation. Nasal toileting/clearance were performed in outpatient clinic among patients mucopurulent and clotted blood in the nasal cavity. Other approach to sinonasal masses in our study was external frontoethmoidectomy or excisional biopsy for histological diagnosis. Depending on the type and form sinonasal injuries surgical interventions in this study were suturing, wound dressing, reduction of nasal bone fracture and rhinoplasty. Nasal septal abscess was drained. No functional endoscopic sinus surgery was performed in our center because endoscope, forceps and other accessories are yet to be procured by hospital management [23]. Associated complications of our sinonasal surgeries were surgical site infection which were treated by antibiotics institutions [24,25]. Recurrent tumour in malignancy were referred for chemoradiation therapy. Immediate reactionary haemorrhage which was treated with nasal packing. Temporary loss of olfactory from clotted blood and oedema. Adhesion was released and nasal patency was restored. The septal perforation was asymptomatic, not noticed by patient and being followed up in our out patients clinic. Patients that required are CT Scan referred. Patients with financial constraints were assisted in sourcing for funds and surgery was eventually performed [26]. Patients that required further surgery and chemoradiotherapy were referred to centers where they were available. Majority of the patients were satisfied with the offered procedures. However few cases of revision surgery, referral, loss to followed up and Surgical failure were recorded in this study. This may be due to lower number of major sinonasal surgeries in this study.

Conclusion

Sinonasal surgeries are still not fully practice despite all the cases and Practicing rhinologist/ otorhinolaryngologist. This is due to limited equipment and adequate funding by policy makers. Provision of adequate surgical facilities will tremendously reduce referral cases and encourage surgical tourism in our center and other developing country.

Funding

There was no financial support. It is a self sponsored research study.

Competing interests

All the authors declare that there were no competing interests.

Acknowledgement

The authors are most grateful to Ekiti state university teaching hospital, the staff and all the patients who participated in this study.

Read More Lupine Publishers Otolaryngology Journal Articles:
https://lupine-publishers-otolaryngology.blogspot.com/

 

 

Friday, March 19, 2021

Lupine Publishers: Lupine Publishers | Underwater Optical Image Proce...

Lupine Publishers: Lupine Publishers | Underwater Optical Image Proce...:  Lupine Publishers | Journal of Oceanography and Petrochemical Sciences Editorial Image processing can be defined as performing an...

Lupine Publishers | Complications Caused by Hearing Aid Mold Impression Material – Clinical Case and Literature Review

 Lupine Publishers | Journal of Otolaryngology


Abstract

A clinical case of the procedure of ear mold impression complication is discussed. The review deals with complications caused by hearing aid mold impression and is compared with a specific example.

Keywords:Silicone; Impression Material; Middle Ear; Foreign Body

Introduction

The procedure for producing an ear mold impression is common for final fitting of hearing aid or ear plugs. Routinely a cotton ball with thread (called otoblock) is inserted in the external ear canal to prevent the colored silicone material that is introduced later to flow too close to the tympanic membrane (TM). If the otoblock is installed improperly complications may occur.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old woman applied to our clinic with the complaints of otorhea from her left ear, otalgia and binaural hearing loss which was more severe on the left side. She had suffered chronic otitis media on both ears from childhood. According to medical documents tympanoplasty on the left ear was performed with fascia in 2008, and on the right in 2013. In 2017 the polyp was removed from the left tympanic cavity and post-procedure otoscopy revealed central perforation with no discharge. The patient was fitted with a hearing aid for the right ear. Soon she referred to the Hearing Aid Center where an impression mold procedure on the left ear took place. The introduction of the silicone material induced otalgia and vertigo. According to medical papers the hearing aid specialist did not report any complications of the manipulation. Nevertheless, antibacterial drops were prescribed. During a period of several months the patient consulted with a private ENT doctor, however no new impairment was detected. 11 months later she was referred to our clinic. Otoscopy of the right ear revealed retraction of the MT. In the left ear serous discharge from the central perforation of the MT was revealed and granulation tissue in posterior inferior part of the TM. CT imaging showed mastoid cavity sclerosis and foreign body in the hypotympanum (Fig 1). Pure tone audiometry revealed mixed severe hearing loss. The patient was scheduled for revision of tympanic cavity and tympanoplasty. While in surgery we observed a foreign body in the hypotympanum that looked similar to the impression silicone, which was carefully removed. Inferior and posterior walls of the external ear canal were slightly remodeled before the removal of the material (Figure 2). In the tympanic cavity mucous tissue with oedema and granulation tissue were revealed; the ossicular chain was intact. The tympanoplasty was performed with a chondro-perichondrium graft. We left the mastoid cavity intact since the inflammation was localized in the tympanic cavity only. Otoscopy one month later revealed healing of TM perforation and external ear canal (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Coronal CT imaging. In hypotympanun the foreign body is visualized (A).

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Figure 2: The removed impression material.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Figure 3: Otomicroscopy 1 month since the operation. Neotympanic membrane (A) without perforation and no inflammation.

Lupinepublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-journal

Discussion

The procedure of making impression of ear mold is rather routine and safe in the vast majority of cases. However, complications sometimes occur as it had happened to our patient and is occasionally discussed in literature as well, from the failure to remove the silicone, to its protrusion to the tympanic cavity and ossicular erosion later on [1]. The symptoms are otalgia and fullness while the procedure, and otorhea, hearing loss, otalgia and vertigo afterwards. It’s considered that erosion of the wall of the semicircular canal is the cause of the vertigo [2]. Seems that the gravity of the complications increases with the duration of the foreign body stay in tympanic cavity [3]. Impression material protrusion more often happens in patients with predisposing factors, such as TM perforation and grommets. Though 5 cases are described for the traumatic perforation due to the manipulation [1].Spontaneous healing of the TM can happen, leaving patients with otalgia and conductive hearing loss [4]. Another high-risk factor is wall down surgery which leads to difficulties for the correct and sufficient fitting of an otoblock while manipulating [5]. CT is an important diagnostic instrument for the visualization of the impression material and is the preoperative map that leads to minimize surgical complications in such cases. Verdam F et al. [6] propose the algorithm to rule out the complications.

In patients with otalgia only and in obvious cases without TM perforation observed in otoscopy before the fitting procedure, the experienced specialist can remove the silicone. If the manipulation increases pain or MT was not observed beforehand, the referral to experienced ENT surgeon is strongly recommended and CT could be useful. The symptoms mentioned above or other symptoms including otalgia require the CT. If the imaging shows the impression material localization in the external ear only it could be removed under local anesthesia. In cases with middle ear involvement surgery with general anesthesia is required [6]. According to S Leong et al. in 36% of cases hearing loss deteriorated. The erosion of the ossicles, soft tissue proliferation, perilymphatic fistula could all be possible reasons for this. In addition, results of surgery decrease due to in sufficient visualization, incorrect surgical instrument and renunciation of CT [1]. Most of the papers deal with patients’ referral for the impression material removal directly after treatment, however in some cases it is left in the middle ear for months and even years. Our patient had surgery approximately one year ago. Colleagues observed cases of discovery and removal 4 years and 8 months [2], 9 years [7] and even 15 years [8] after hearing aid fitting procedure. In the latter case the old man didn’t use hearing aid and he and his relatives have forgotten the manipulation. Undoubtedly the best option to avoid these complications is the development of the equipment scanning of the external ear without the impression material. Unfortunately, this technology is not developed yet to be clinically applied.

Read More Lupine Publishers Otolaryngology Journal Articles:
https://lupine-publishers-otolaryngology.blogspot.com/

 

Choanal Atresia Repair, A Comparison Between Transnasal Puncture With Dilatation And Stentless Endoscopic Transnasal Drilling

  Abstract Background: in this study we present the outcome of surgical repair of choanal atresia of 33 patients underwent t...